HADCO

Comments of New York State DEC Final Project Agreement/Workplan

Comments of New York State DEC
Final Project Agreement/Workplan
Project XL - HADCO Corporation

These comments are based on the July 24, 1996 transmission of the "final discussion draft" of the HADCO FPA, sent out by Joan Jouzaitis.

From the text, it appears that some of our components on the previous draft were addressed, but not all of them. The following concerns remain and pertain to the same paragraph numbers in the July 24 draft.

18-20. These paragraphs still need to be properly coordinated with regard to primacy by the states on solid waste variances and primacy by EPA on delistings. This can be done as shown, since paragraphs 16 and 17 set the stage.

18. "Within forty-five (45) days of receipt of the eligibility decision, HADCO will submit petitions for review which specify the types of regulatory relief it requests for each facility (hereinafter, 'the petitions'). In case of a delisting, the petitions will substantively comply with the requirements of 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 and will be submitted to EPA. In the case of a solid waste variance, the petitions will be submitted to the appropriate state regulatory agencies and will comply with the identified requirements of each state's laws and regulations."

19. "After receiving a petition, the administering agency will notify HADCO with regard to each facility that (1) the petition is complete and accepted for filing (hereinafter, 'completeness notification'); (2) the petition is incomplete and that specific additional information is required; or (3) the petition is incomplete and additional time is needed for review. The agencies intend to provide such notice within thirty (30) days of receipt. HADCO should submit all corrections and additions to incomplete petitions with thirty (30) days of receipt of notification by the administering agency."

20. The last sentence needs to be revised because state procedures may provide for a public comment period of something other than 60 days. The following language is suggested: "Following the appropriate public comment period, as required under federal or authorized state law, EPA or the state agencies will issue final decisions under 40 CFR 260.20 (e) or 260.33 or equivalent, federally authorized state regulations, through publication in the Federal Register or, as appropriate, the comparable state analogue to the Federal Register."

23.
(a) With regard to the next-to-last sentence, please do not attempt to amend New York State's implementation language. DEC cannot accept or comply with the indicated language. DEC does not act upon a delisting petition until after EPA has taken final action. In addition, we cannot issue a decision on a delisting petition within 30 days of EPA's final notice in the Federal Register, granting the delisting petition. Our minimum public comment period alone is 30 days. This is why the state implementation language that we submitted indicated that we will attempt to issue our decision on a HADCO delisting petition within 45 days of EPA's final notice in the Federal Register.

(b) The regulatory references in the first sentence should read, "6NYCRR 370.3 (a), (d) (1) (iii), and (e) (3)." The language in the draft left out the second reference.

With regard to the next-to-last sentence of the second paragraph, once again, please do not attempt to amend New York's implementation language. Since DEC must perform the technical review on a variance request, a decision on HADCO's petition within 45 days of the acceptance of such petition as being complete is unlikely. The required minimum public notice period alone is 30 days and additional time must be allowed for prior technical review and preparation of the publication and post-publication consideration of any comments received and issuance of a decision. Please remove this sentence.

24. We have also submitted comments on certain aspects of the California implementation language that appeared to raise questions.

26. The appropriate title for Mr. Nosenchuck is Director, Division of Solid & Hazardous Materials.

32. We have commented previously that this paragraph appears to be an inappropriate artifact of earlier drafts. Obviously, HADCO sludges will not qualify for either delisting or a solid waste variances until after sludge dewatering equipment has been installed. The real implementation of the XL Project can't begin until this has been accomplished.

We need to discuss this. Appendix A is loaded with references (see attached) to how savings can be used to justify the installation of sludge dryers. This is backwards. The installation of sludge dryers is needed to make savings possible.

Attachment

Based upon HADCO's analysis of its WWT sludge using EPA's extraction procedure (EP) and toxicity characteristic leaching procedures (TCLP), HADCO maintains that the use of ammonium chloride etchants in its PWB process results in the generation of a non hazardous WWT sludge.

2. The Proposal

This project seeks to demonstrate that: a) classifying HADCO'S WWT sludge as an F006 waste pursuant to Subtitle C is not necessary to protect human health and the environment; b) the WWT sludge can be safely reclaimed without all of the strict regulatory controls imposed by RCRA Subtitle C; and c) a conditional delisting or a solid waste variance will yield substantial economic and environmental benefits.

If HADCO meets the requisite conditions for the conditional delisting, or in the alternative, solid waste variance, the cost savings enjoyed by HADCO will be directed towards the installation of sludge dryers and may be directed toward the reclamation of copper dust from the edging and drill processes.

Further, HADCO's successful implementation of this project may yield a more simplified delisting process for other PWB manufactures that generate sludges of similar composition.

II. Project XL Criteria

A. Environmental Results

This project supports the RCRA goals of waste minimization, pollution prevention, and reduced use of natural resources. More specifically, the project provides the following potential environmental benefits:

By eliminating cost and regulatory barriers to recycling, other PWB manufactures that now send their WWT sludge to landfills after treatment will have an incentive to recycle this resource instead of burying it.

The direct recycling of this metal-rich material will decrease the need to obtain the metals through the mining of virgin material or other means. Natural ore has a copper content of approximately 1%, while the PWB WWT sludge has a copper content of up to 25%; the recycled material is thus a valuable commodity.

The revenue stream caused by the direct recycling of WWT sludge may allow similarly situated PWB manufactures to economically recycle other non-RCRA wastes streams that are also copper rich (e.g. drilling and edging dust). HADCO produces approximately 150 tons per year of this dust, which has a copper content ranging from 1 - 16%. These waste streams are currently land filled. Assuming that a conditional delisting or a solid waste variance is granted, resulting in overall cost savings, HADCO will find a means to recycle these wastes, thereby reducing the generation of landfill waste.

There may be substantial reductions in air pollutant emissions from transportation of this WWT sludge. Currently, F006 from New England and other east coast generators is transported to a TSD facility in Pennsylvania. Sludge is then shipped to Canadian smelters or to non-North American countries.
Under this Project, the sludge will be shipped directly to the smelters.

Further, by converting this material from a waste to a commodity, the sludge can generate revenue (or at least be disposed of at a reduced cost). Thus, HADCO and other generators may be able to justify the installation of on-site dryers. Direct shipping may reduce transport miles by up to 50%. Use of sludge dryers may reduce this figure by another 25% due to reduction of volume. Mobile source air emissions associated with the disposal/recycling of this material may then be reduced by 75%. HADCO approximates that this would produce an annual saving of about 3,000 gal/year of diesel fuel.

Additionally, the Pennsylvania TSD currently dries a portion of the F006 waste it accepts. The sludge has to contain a specific range of moisture to be acceptable to the smelters. Part of HADCO's proposal included drying the sludge at the generation facility in order to reduce shipping cost and meet smelter specifications.

B. Cost Savings and Paperwork Reduction

1. Cost Savings

HADCO currently pays $200-400 per ton for the recycling of its WWT sludge. HADCO generates more than 600 tons per year of WWT sludge, and pays more then $200,000 per year for its management. Direct shipment to copper smelters or other copper reclamation facilities will hopefully result in positive revenue (this may be marginal revenue, or at a minimum, a significant reduction in the cost.) The resulting savings can then be used to justify sludge drying and hauling of other non-RCRA copper streams. HADCO has not yet determined the exact cost savings associated with conditional delisting.

After FPA approval, HADCO will determine the cost savings, and the resulting prevention/recycling steps that can be implemented. A reasonable estimate for the cost of the installation of an on-site dryer is $100,000, suggesting that installation of a drier upon conditional delisting will be economical. Alternative drying approaches will be evaluated. The cost of this project should be relatively low, and HADCO Corporation has the financial capability to carry it out.

2. Paperwork

If the conditional delisting or a solid waste variance is implemented, HADCO will not be required to file and submit hazardous waste shipment manifests thereby reducing the amount of paperwork generated. Further, shipments to Canada will not require formal preapproval and notification required for the shipment of RCRA Subtitle C wastes.

In addition, HADCO intends this project to be a pilot for the PWB industry. HADCO believes that this pilot will confirm that non-chromic WWT sludge does not meet the hazardous waste characteristics under RCRA subtitle C. A conditional delisting could then apply to this type of waste throughout the PWB industry (subject to certain demonstrations by individual companies), and would avoid the cost and paperwork (and resources needed to review paperwork) associated with numerous individual delisting applications. There are approximately 750 PWB manufacturers in the United States. Removal of PWB WWT sludge may produce significant savings to the industry.

C. Stakeholder Support

Stakeholders to the development of the FPA include Merrimack River Watershed council, NH Health Office, Town of Hudson (NH), Audubon Society of NH, Sierra Club (NH Chapter), City of Watsonville (CA), Santa Clara County (CA) Environmental Heath Department, Teradyne, M/A-COM, Inc, Loral Federal Systems, West Coast Circuits, Zycon Corp., All Waste, PDL Industrial Products, Victor Marani, World Resources Corp. (the facility presently handling HADCO's WWT sludge), and the IPC (the PWB industry association).

Other interested stakeholders include Wastecap of NH, Atlantic States Legal Foundation, NY PIRG, and the Towns of Derry and Salem (NH).

D. Innovation/Multi-Media Pollution Prevention

This proposal achieves solid waste minimization and recycling; results in the reduced use of virgin resources; and reduces mobile air emissions (the largest source of VOCs and CO in most states). Furthermore, the improved economics of recycling may permit the recycling of a solid (non-RCRA) waste which is presently land filled and may also permit the drying of the sludge to reduce the volume of sludge transported.

Furthermore, a conditional delisting promotes improved regulatory flexibility. The project may assist the Agencies in developing a more streamlined conditional delisting process for certain other waste streams.

E. Transferability

As discussed previously in Subsections A and B of this Memorandum, the proposal may be transferable to other PWB manufactures not using chrome-based etchants. If

HADCO

Local Navigation